that race remains a touchy issue for a lot of people. And as a rule I have no real interest in discussing comparative suffering and its ramifications. But I have to ask this question - who on earth appointed the various hucksters that claim to speak for the entire black community? And why do these shysters continue to defend the indefensible?
I ask because of the following: Group announces support for Jefferson
When the William Jeffersons and Marion Barrys of the world are compared without irony to Booker T. Washington and George Washington Carver (I am grateful at least that they stopped short of Martin Luther King comparisons), you have to assume that the moral stance of these defenders is awfully skewed. I'm frankly disappointed that any man of the cloth would step up and defend a man caught red handed. Innocent until proven guilty, to be sure, but this is hardly a Republican plot.
Can I also ask that people stop using the term "justice" when they mean "we want our guy to go free regardless of his guilt"? Justice has become a buzzword for the disaffected when they don't get what they want. Stage a protest or a news conference, scream "no justice, no peace", and wait for the news buzzards to lap it up like the trained dogs they are. Justice as it used to mean would suggest that guilty men pay for their crimes, and the innocent are cleared.
Let me also note my two favorite lines in the story. First, from the Feds:
Asked to comment on allegations aired at the news conference, Bryan Sierra, a Justice Department spokesman, said "I'm not even going to dignify that with a response."and this one from a "supporter" of Jefferson's:
he said his confidence in Jefferson was strained by some of the evidence, in particular an allegation the FBI found $90,000 in bribe money in the congressman's freezer.
"That's hard to explain," he said.
You got that right.
|